Science Is Not a Notion: Randi on Evolution, Miracles, and Freedom of Choice

Kansas Joins the 16th Century

We’ve all heard that Kansas has made a huge leap into the 16th century by deciding to officially disavow evolution, while the rest of our species prepare to enter the 21st century. The Discovery Channel featured an item on their Discovery News that referred to the Kansas idiocy as “A major blow against Darwin’s theory of evolution.” It was nothing of the sort. It was an action by a group of politicians catering to the needs of the ignorant, shielding them from the threat of knowledge and the responsibilities that entails. Darwin is not one whit threatened. It is the children of Kansas whose future is clouded by this ridiculous medieval throwback. The “major blow” was to those kids, not to science.

And He’s the Science Editor for ABC-TV? 

The irrepressible Bob Park, of the American Physical Society, notifies us of particularly egregious abuses of science, and one has gotten our attention. As we all know, the 1988 carbon-dating of the Shroud of Turin proved it to be a 14th-century creation. That wasn’t very startling news, since even the Roman Catholic Church knew and accepted that fact. But, as we predicted, the ever-faithful rejected that firm scientific evidence, and decided that science had no place in judging religious miracles. Mind you, if the carbon-dating had shown “expected”—to them—results, they would have embraced those results enthusiastically. 

Well, a recent re-examination of the mass of evidence on this ancient rag has caused the miracle fans to once again accept science. Pollen grains found on the shroud, it is said, are native to the Gaza Strip! So, the debate is on once more. In my opinion, though I’ve no expertise in the nature and origins of pollen, I’d like to know if that variety is exclusively from the Gaza Strip, and whether a “salting” of the shroud might have given the observed evidence. But to Michael Guillen, ABC-TV’s science guru via Good Morning America, there’s no doubt something here worth considering. Says he, “The theoretical physicist part of me is skeptical … carbon dating is pretty firm evidence … [but] my religious beliefs are not going to rise and fall based on whether this is a fake or a real thing, because my religious beliefs, like those of a lot of people in the world, go much further and transcend any notion of scientific proof.” 

Scientific proof is never a “notion.”

So much for impartial decisions arrived at by a famous Ph.D. trusted to decide what the American public will or will not be offered in respect to the facts of science. To this scientist, proof arrived at by careful double-blind research is a “notion.” Preferred beliefs arrived at with no evidence can “transcend” any science. And I ask you to recall that Dr. Guillen was the deserving recipient of a Pigasus Award from the JREF. See? We know how to pick winners! 

Guillen Responds 

A few days later, this was posted by Dr. Guillen, quoted here in its entirety: 

The only Amazing thing about Randi is his amazing ability to mislead people—I guess it’s his magical training that makes him so expert at it! Once again, he’s quoting me out of context! I invite anyone to read the full transcript of my segment, which should soon be available for free at the Michael Guillen Science section of abcnews.com … or for purchase from ABC-TV. 

Read it and you’ll see that at the very beginning of the segment I state very clearly that the majority opinion … and, indeed the official position of the Vatican … is that this Shroud is a very clever forgery, made by an artist in the 1300s. I mention the carbon dating as one piece of evidence for that position. Randi selected and stitched together two separated quotes from the end, where I said: “As a religious man, it is exciting to think that this might be the real McCoy … but as theoretical physicist, I am skeptical, because the carbon dating is such firm evidence, etc … and because during the Middle Ages, forgeries were big business, serving up fakes to the many people who were going on Pilgrimages in those days.” 

But having said that, I concluded, my religious beliefs will not live or die, based on whether this Shroud is real or fake … because in the end, my religious beliefs are based on deep feelings that transcend any notion of scientific proof. 

Bottom line: Long ago, Randi and Bob Parks decided that I was the Antichrist and now they will not stop evangelizing against me, even if they have to distort the truth to make their case. As for me, I live by the famous words of Darryl Zannuck: “I don’t care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.” And, by the way, next time you talk with Randi, tell him that I’m still waiting for that so-called Pigasus Award … I’ve made space for it between my many Emmys. 

Randi Responds to Guillen 

Well, a tear clouded my eye as I read that last line. And the words “cheap shot” briefly flitted through my addled head. 

However, briefly, I’ll only say that Michael Guillen’s line illustrates quite well my dismay at his attitude—and thinking process. Scientific proof is never a “notion.” My Webster’s tells me that “notion” is defined as “a general, vague, or imperfect conception or idea,” and also as “a fanciful or foolish idea.” If that’s your notion of science—that science is a notion—then I think you’re using the wrong book. And, since Darryl Zanuck, as you correctly stated, cared very much about having his name spelled correctly, you should have obliged him. One “n,” Michael. And it’s Bob Park, not Parks. I guess I have to watch you every minute. And I will … As for Bob Park and me, we never thought of you as the Antichrist. We just think of you as a bad scientist. 

P.S. My assistant Andrew just pointed out that Michael Guillen is celebrating his winning of Emmys, rather than any science awards. Is that his real business—entertainment—rather than science …? 

My View of Carl 

News has just been released that tells us Carl Sagan was a frequent user of marijuana and attributed many of his insights to the use of the drug. I’ve received a raft of mail today inquiring about my reaction to this. 

Carl Sagan was one of my heroes, big time. As most of you know, he wrote favorably about me, and provided me with an introduction to one of my books. He always encouraged me in every way. Any time we spent together was delightful. I was consulted by him at Cornell about his Critical Thinking course, and he arranged for me to lecture there, twice. I was honored to be a guest at his home, I am still in touch with one of his sons and we are good friends. And, Carl was not reluctant to criticize some of my actions when he thought I needed to be scolded. I respect him and his memory very sincerely and without reservation. 

I find it repugnant that anyone can choose to unbalance their mind voluntarily, and to thereby surrender to chaos.

My attitude on drugs is well known. Most of my close friends will reflect that attitude. I find it repugnant that anyone can choose to unbalance their mind voluntarily, and to thereby surrender to chaos. I’m very much “down” on drug use, to the point that I never use even pain killers unless it’s absolutely necessary. I want to be “here and now” all the time, if I can manage it. That’s my choice. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke. Again, my choice. I don’t expect others to go along with those choices, but I also don’t believe that I should suffer discomfort or bad health as a result of their drug needs. 

And now I have learned that Carl Sagan regularly used marijuana. I’d known for a long time that Ann Druyan was very active in a movement that sought to liberalize laws against marijuana, and I’ve always been horrified at the extreme penalties originated by lawmakers who smoke and drink themselves, but want pot-smokers to go to prison for the most minor offenses to the law involving that drug. We all know of long jail sentences and heavy fines borne by persons involved with this drug—and others—penalties that are far greater than those for murder! How can that be right? Of course, it isn’t right, or just, or rational. But it will be in force so long as zealots in government throw their weight behind stupid excesses. And that seems to be a condition under which we will always labor. 

In fact, and I don’t think I’ve expressed this before in print, I cannot see the rationality of laws against the use of any substance—no matter how stupid and harmful that use may be—so long as it doesn’t interfere with my comfort and safety (or the comfort and safety of those dear to me), or require me to support any resultant addiction and its consequences. People should be totally free to decide what to do with their lives, providing that their actions don’t interfere with others. That’s my stance. I don’t think we can legislate certain matters. 

At the same time, I say that the authorities have a paramount duty and obligation to inform everyone of the truth about drug use. No, not the incredibly naive and hyperbolized version of reality that was seen in the government-produced propaganda film Reefer Madness, though we can laugh at that now (can’t we?) and hope that we now have a better understanding of such matters. Young people should be made aware of the fact that certain substances are highly addictive, can cause them to malfunction, will shorten their lives, should be avoided at all costs, will reduce their ability to manage driving and other sensitive actions, can induce or directly cause certain deadly/fatal diseases, will cripple and kill if used freely, and are known to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. I am referring to tobacco and alcohol. Yet these substances are licensed for sale, and taxed, by the governments of the world! As for other drugs, I fail to see—in many instances—why they are looked upon so differently. 

I’ll never use pot. It might, as Carl seemed to think, enlarge my ability to think, and give me great ideas. Maybe. But I also want control, and I think I would lose that. Won’t happen. It was Carl’s choice, and I have to respect that. I really wonder whether my reaction to him would have been different if I’d known. Maybe, maybe not. A photo of Ann, myself, and Carl, hangs above my desk. I just looked up and said to Carl, “Your choice, guy, and I’m with you!” 

I am the most ardent believer in freedom of choice and action.

I’m very disturbed by all this and may have more coherent things to say at another time. I just don’t know. I miss Carl a lot. But I do know that abusing dope is stupid. Still. 

Certainly, people do need drugs for specific legitimate purposes. I was given Valium for a recent operation, and that was not an abuse. I would not consider using it voluntarily just to assuage sorrow or distress, because such a use would take from me the confrontation of the problem. But that’s mychoice, and I have no right to saddle other persons with my mores. These comments are not such an attempt, believe me. I am the most ardent believer in freedom of choice and action.